More equivocation? I guess a poodle is only similar to a dog as well. Why can't you guys just be honest and admit there is no evidence of Graptolite or Foram evolving into anything but slight variations of the original species?Enjoy.

Jason,

Foram evolution, as shown in the diagram, goes from simple to complex and is found this way all over the world ...lower strata=simple...higher strata=complex.They are sorted by geological era...time.

At least with dogs, a hundred-thousand years from now they will find all different types and breeds in the same strata...not sorted.

You won't find any modern day mammal fossils in Pre-Paleocene strata...why? Because they did not exist at the time.

We are drifting from the point here. The flood wouldnt have been able to select where to deposit fossils based on their ecological niche or environment. They would ALL be in the same strata. Floods do not deposit desert sandstone one minute, tropical chalk the next, lava flows next, and then sandstone again. It is impossible.

Evidence of your baseless strawman? Absolutely zero.

7exxtkN8610&hl=en_US&fs=1

The flood would have deposited a continuous flow of mixed particles containing sandstone,percipitated limestone, and shale. It would have been deposited horizontally as the experimental data demonstrates and would have sorted the particles according to density. If that were true, then we should find a successive layering of (sandstone,shale,and limestone). Do we see that pattern across the globe? Yes we do. Just look at the layering at the Grand Canyon.

1)Tapeats Sandstone

2)Cambrian muav and Redwall Limestone

3)Hermit Shale

Then the pattern repeats itself again beginning with the Coconino Sandstone. The layers contain different fossils because they were transported from long distances and different locations.

At least we use experimental data to reach our conclusions. Lava flows are never found between flood layers,they are always found below or flowing over the top.

Where is the lava flows between the hundreds of millions of years of deposition at the grand canyon?

The Coconino sandstone was an 'Eolian' deposit....along with the Navajo sandstone.

If you could show me the layering forming in sand dunes,then you might have a case. All we saw in the other thread was strata and not water produced layers found in the Navajo and Coconino.

By the way...check out the intersection of the 'level' strata with the 'angled' strata (PreCambrian)...how does a 'global' flood do that?

It could only be produced by catastrophic uplift and erosion. Hint; uniformitairian processes produce uniform formations not sudden changes in stratafication and certainly not global. The same exact uplift and erosion occured in the cambrian/precambrian boundry in Great Britain. Long periods of erosion would have produced deep and wide channels,but none exist all across the globe. It's as if this boundry was suddenly scraped off the face of the earth with a giant razor blade.

No, they are actually sorted according to strata... lower/oldest to higher/youngest.

They are what petro-geologist use to understand what strata they are dealing with in order to predict the presence of oil.Of course they are...just not all together because they represent different geological eras and strata.

They are found all over the world...they are biostratigraphic markers.This is grasping at straws...pure speculation...Forams are the most well documented and studied fossils in existance.I viewed them all...funny all of the fossils seemed to be ...wait...dinosaurs.

It actually looks like a fun thing to do.

Peace

Thank you scan man. I have contacted my geologist friend via email who used to do just what you are talking about--and is still a creationist. From talking to him before-- in a nutshell, the formations of forminefera are in many complex and bent lenses--not clean cut, continuous layers. But I await his email for confirmation.

As for your comment on the dinosaurs. Well preserved dinosaur fragments would be a more exact phrase to describe the scene. Yes, there was a skelton found, but it was entirely twisted and mangled. Some of the bones are broken but well preserved, showing they were probably broken shortly after death. Also there are shrimp burrows. Why would shrimp be in sandstone beside a dinosaur, unless the dinosaur is underwater? I bet there are other marine fossils also.

Yes, it does look fun. And I think it's neat there is family there, of course being supervised by paleontologists.

It could only be produced by catastrophic uplift and erosion. Hint; uniformitairian processes produce uniform formations not sudden changes in stratafication and certainly not global. The same exact uplift and erosion occured in the cambrian/precambrian boundry in Great Britain. Long periods of erosion would have produced deep and wide channels,but none exist all across the globe. It's as if this boundry was suddenly scraped off the face of the earth with a giant razor blade.

Jason,

We have been through this before in another thread. The picture that you have shown is an eolian deposit....a lithified sanddune.

Of course, Blood, and Bone marrow has been Found in numerous types fossilized of bones, but then again Red Blood Cells, don't contain DNA.Ã‚Â Plus that confirms more YEC evidence because why in the world would those organic substances last for over 65 million years???Ã‚Â Seriously.

DNA progression is so false, that just by looking at the fossils (rock) one can quickly see the illogic in thinking that.Ã‚Â Why even begin to think that?Ã‚Â Oh we will take modern DNA samples, and test them with Fossilized DNA samples ( which don't exist...).Ã‚Â Therefore DNA progression studies based on fossils is pure speculation, and a very huge assumption on the evolutionist part.

Progressive Homology in the DNA of fossils is so fundamentaly false, that I can't even begin to understand why you'd continue on with such an idea.Ã‚Â The fossils can't be ordered that way because:

They don't contain DNA.

Also Mcstone your Idea that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded is patently false, because even paleontologist speculate on this, it is not a solid fact, and you know it.Ã‚Â Paleontologist debate the Warm-Blooded vs Cold Blooded all the time.Ã‚Â Why do they speculate on it?Ã‚Â Because they have no solid evidence to test this on.

The T-Rex may have been warm-blooded though, based on the Red Blood cells found in it's bone, which were very bird-like in nature, but the T-Rex has a Bird-Shaped frame, and for many years this has been thought about.

Now, what about Triceratops?Ã‚Â What about Diplodocus?Ã‚Â Those could've been cold-blooded because we have no evidence to make such claims as ALL dinosaurs being warm-blooded... A few carnivores maybe, and a few herbivores, but certainly not all of them.

Fossils eventually calcify into rocks, i grant you. Nevertheless, those well-preserved enough that we can extract DNA from confirm the trend; species higher up acquire the DNA of those below them. The T-rex proteins you rightly speak of are most closely related to the humble chicken. How fitting, then, that the flood thought to deposit chickens and other fowls higher up in the geological record. Why not t'other way round?

The fact is, even without DNA from fossils, we can confirm the pattern as long as genera - represented then as now - are extant, which is why preventable species extinction is such a crime. We see the same homology in the fossil record as we do in genomes. They are mirrors of each other.MODERN (that is important to note) DNA homologies suggests that:

Chordate genomes were inherited by all fishFish genomes were inherited by all tetrapodsTetrapod genomes were inherited by all amphibiansAmphibian genomes were inherited by all reptilesReptile genomes were inherited by all mammals(cutting out many other intermediate steps)

That isnt to say that no change occurs at each stage; on the contrary, many big changes can occur. Nevertheless, the homologies, in HOX genes for example, are clear.

YEC accepts them too; as evidence of common design. What YEC doesnt explain is why things were added and taken away from the genome. Why the DNA shows a progressive change along this pathway. Why certain genes have been switched off, why new genes have appeared, why the same gaps and junk exists at the same place. But even if you dont think evolution can happen, you cant deny the homology

In the fossil record - laid down by the flood remember - we see:

Chordates are lower than fish (no fish before chordates)Fish are lower than tetrapods (no tetrapods before fish)Tetrapods are lower than amphibians (no amphibians before tetrapods)Amphibians are lower than reptiles (no reptiles before amphibians)Reptiles are lower than mammals (no mammals before reptiles)

Your position is that this, essentially, is a co-incidence, and nothing more. Remember: the DNA is never - NEVER - the other way round.

Why do amphibians and reptiles lack distinctively mammal genes if the homology is so irrelevent?

Why have the homologies and fossil record been one way? How can you explain this?

As for the Dinosaurs, i think it would be more appropiate to start a new topic. But, your confusing debate on homeothermy with endothermy. They are not the same thing. Homeothermy is an advanced trait of mammals to control body heat. Endothermy is the ability to generate body heat without fine control.

Palentologists are of little doubt of the impossiblity of any large animal heating itself for literally days at a time before being able to move, as would be necessary. And they have worked that out. There simply wouldnt be enough hours of sunlight in the day to even get started. Ectothermy is barely enough to sustain crocodiles and snakes, let alone any sort of dinosaur. Dinosaurs were a mystery. Thats probably why people like them so much. None of them were ecto-therms, because, as ive said, you can only have a certain size before your surface area is insufficient for the volume its got to heat. The whole clade of Dinosaurs were endotherms, of one kind or another, (triceratop species included), but not homeotherms, and thats why they were so successful. Thats pretty well established now. Its pretty damn obvious if you ask me. But then, there was that "thing" with stegosaurus's back plates absorbing heat for a while. Nope, that wouldnt work either.

Fossils eventually calcify into rocks, i grant you. Nevertheless, those well-preserved enough that we can extract DNA from confirm the trend; species higher up acquire the DNA of those below them.

I agree,but that only confirms that species that show morphilogical variation are nothing more than the same species we see today. The best example is the fact that Neadndertal DNA is up to 99.9% identical to modern human. My DNA is only 99.9% identical to my father,which confirms species stability not evolution.

YEC accepts them too; as evidence of common design. What YEC doesnt explain is why things were added and taken away from the genome. Why the DNA shows a progressive change along this pathway. Why certain genes have been switched off, why new genes have appeared, why the same gaps and junk exists at the same place.

Human and Chimp DNA is 5% dissimilar when comparing indels alone. Indels are genes that don't exist in the other genome. Common design would expect a huge gap,but evolution predicted that they should be ~99% identical.

In a recent article,David A. DeWitt cited a study which found that the two species are only 95% identical when insertions and deletions are considered,showing that the estimate of divergence depends mainly on what type of DNA is being compared. A number of differences between humans and chimps were named that are difficult to quantify in an estimate of sequence divergence (that is, the differences in bases between the human and chimp genomes), including shorter telomeres in humans, a 10% larger chimp genome, and great differences in chromosomes 4, 9, 12 and the Y chromosome, for example. Indeed, DNA similarity estimates Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdo not adequately represent fine changes in genome organization.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢...

...in fact, it was found that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe 5% human-chimp difference already published is likely to be an underestimate, possibly by more than a factor of 2.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

Now, Anzai et al. have published a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that confirms this statement. In the study, nearly one-half of the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) region was sequenced, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwhich to date represents the longest continuous sequence within this species [chimps], our closest evolutionary relativeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, and has been described as a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœrapidly evolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ part of the genome. Although it has been held that human/chimp similarity in the MHC is Ã¢â‚¬Ëœso great that the alleles must have originated before the supposed chimp/human evolutionary divergenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, the sequence results actually dropped the DNA similarity estimate down to 86.7%!

Fossils eventually calcify into rocks, i grant you. Nevertheless, those well-preserved enough that we can extract DNA from confirm the trend; species higher up acquire the DNA of those below them.

I agree,but that only confirms that species that show morphilogical variation are nothing more than the same species we see today. The best example is the fact that Neadndertal DNA is up to 99.9% identical to modern human. My DNA is only 99.9% identical to my father,which confirms species stability not evolution.

Fossils eventually calcify into rocks, i grant you. Nevertheless, those well-preserved enough that we can extract DNA from confirm the trend; species higher up acquire the DNA of those below them. The T-rex proteins you rightly speak of are most closely related to the humble chicken.

The chronic problem is the assumptions. What is meant by Ã¢â‚¬Å“species higher upÃ¢â‚¬Â? And how does one species Ã¢â‚¬Å“acquireÃ¢â‚¬Â the DNA of another species. The assumptions of vast periods of time is so set in peoples minds that they can not even approach the fossil record with out bias.

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, what is a modern day mammal? Evo's deny the exitstance of mammals with dinosaurs by fictitious inflation of the time line. It is troublesome though when the time-line does not cooperate. Like when mammals that did not exist, ate dinosaurs.

Biostratigraphy of forams is so precise, that petro-geologist at any point in the globe, can easily identify stratigraphic layers from a core drill.

Forams show a detailed evolutionary development, from the lower strata levels on upward. They are virtually the same size and mass, yet are never intermixed between strata levels. It would be impossible for a flood to lay these microscopic fossils down an such a precise order.

Peace

However, if they have been laid down since the flood and the time-line is just inflated, then we see exactly what we should.

I did find it interesting that there does not seem to be any sign of macroevolution to the forams the "time". If they have been settling to the ocean floor for billions of years, there should be an easily identifiable recording of such. But if there are only thousands of years invloved, well once again the pattern fits the flood timeline.

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, what is a modern day mammal? Evo's deny the exitstance of mammals with dinosaurs by fictitious inflation of the time line. It is troublesome though when the time-line does not cooperate. Like when mammals that did not exist, ate dinosaurs.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6817636/].

Prior to this discovery of this predatory mammal (dated at 130 mya) the common ancestral mammal had been propsed as emerging c200 mya.

Eh?Chimps have 10-12% more DNA than humans. That means that if the other parts are exactly the same, the maximum similarity could be about 90%... Logic error here? It's impossible for humans to be 99%.

Also did you even read the last part of his post? Please be honest and read his entire post before replying with a statement that is not only logically impossible, but that was proven wrong after the words that you quoted.

I agree,but that only confirms that species that show morphilogical variation are nothing more than the same species we see today. The best example is the fact that Neadndertal DNA is up to 99.9% identical to modern human. My DNA is only 99.9% identical to my father,which confirms species stability not evolution.

Your DNA is in fact only 50% identical to your fathers. It is 100% human, but only 50% identical to your father and mother respectively, because each of your chromosones contains 1 copy of DNA (if you like) from each parent. You, truly, are the sum of your parents.

What this means is that you might have the genes of a human - contributed by both reproductive partners - but you might have only a small subset of the possible variation in those genes (alleles) contributed by either parent. The difference is that although neanderthal genes might be relatively >99% identical to that of modern humans (because they were also humans), the alleles - the things that are actually exploited by natural selection - were not shared. Thus, Neanderthals and other Homo species remained distinctly breeding populations, despite only minor genetic differences, though they were both human. Neanderthal cross-breeding was also hindered by a low population size; they lived alongside us, but there was so few of them, they simply didnt cross with us, to "have a go" as it were. Not like good old Homo sapiens. We dont stop still the job's done.

Human and Chimp DNA is 5% dissimilar when comparing indels alone. Indels are genes that don't exist in the other genome. Common design would expect a huge gap,but evolution predicted that they should be ~99% identical.

How does evolution predict that? The precise percentage (and that is a paradox, percentages, by definition, are approximations), is irrelevent. We last shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. The differences could have been anywhere in the 90%+ margin. It is the similarities are that important; not quoteable percentages. Nevertheless, >98% is quite alot, wouldnt you agree?

The chronic problem is the assumptions. What is meant by Ã¢â‚¬Å“species higher upÃ¢â‚¬Â? And how does one species Ã¢â‚¬Å“acquireÃ¢â‚¬Â the DNA of another species. The assumptions of vast periods of time is so set in peoples minds that they can not even approach the fossil record with out bias.

Species literally "higher up" in the fossil record. As you would look at the fossil record. And species acquire DNA through inheritence and subsequent isolation. A domestic pig has inherited the DNA of a wild boar; through breeding, and in this case, probably isolation by man-made fences. In other cases, the isolation can be a canyon, a stream, or even the mechanical difficulties of...prefertilisation.

Similarly, reptiles share key genes and regulatory sequences with the classes below them (in the fossil record). Never above them (in the fossil record).

Any suggestions why?We've tackled Dinosaur physiology, Neanderthal genetics and more. We still havent got any further ahead. Take my word for it:

Species higher up in the fossil record have GOT the DNA of specific species below them. Never the other way around. Why?

How did the flood desposit fossils in this way? Why isnt there a single anomaly, for instance, in the flood's abilities to wreak vengence in order of Hox gene diversification?

Chimps have 10-12% more DNA than humans. That means that if the other parts are exactly the same, the maximum similarity could be about 90%... Logic error here? It's impossible for humans to be 99%.

Also did you even read the last part of his post?Please be honest and read his entire post before replying with a statement that is not only logically impossible, but that was proven wrong after the words that you quoted.

There is more to genomes then just coding sequences. Chimpanzees may very well have more raw DNA, per nucleus, then humans. But non-coding sequences dont code for anything, it doesnt matter how much you have. You can find far simpler organisms with a magnitude more raw DNA then either species. It is however the protein-coding sequences (the proteome) that allow us to see how genotype results in phenotype. The proteomes are near enough identical. In fact, to see the overall similarity in chimp and human genomes, check these badboys out:

human genome on the left, chimp on the right

.........getting back to the point:

How exactly did the flood order fossils based on relative similarities in DNA?

Prior to this discovery of this predatory mammal (dated at 130 mya) the common ancestral mammal had been propsed as emerging c200 mya.

Can I get a "duh"!? If there were predatory mammals at 130mya there must have been mammals prior to that time to "evolve" into predators. The point is that the predator mammal did not fit the predictions of ToE. Of course those predictions are or will be altered to match.

If you reduce the inflated time line required for ToE to an YEC time line. Then the discontinuities dissapear.

ToE does not match the evidence, it manipulates the evidence to the requirements of the theory.

Species higher up in the fossil record have GOT the DNA of specific species below them. Never the other way around. Why?

This statement is not true or incorrectly stated. If specie A has the DNA of specie B and A is below B, then B does have the DNA of a specie below but A has the DNA of a specie above. This eliminates your statement with only your statement as evidence.

How did the flood desposit fossils in this way? Why isnt there a single anomaly, for instance, in the flood's abilities to wreak vengence in order of Hox gene diversification?

Really, 100%? Not one anomoly? You want to stick with that? I have not searched yet, but I know better than to expect anything in nature to be 100%. I'll look if I need to, but you may retract if you choose first.

Can I get a "duh"!? If there were predatory mammals at 130mya there must have been mammals prior to that time to "evolve" into predators. The point is that the predator mammal did not fit the predictions of ToE. Of course those predictions are or will be altered to match.

The TOE predicts that given 70 million years a class such as mammals could have diversified into many lifestyles even if in this case potential niches were limited by the hegemony of the reptiles.

If you reduce the inflated time line required for ToE to an YEC time line. Then the discontinuities dissapear.

ToE does not match the evidence, it manipulates the evidence to the requirements of the theory.

The evidence certaily matches the predictions of evolution. Even a causal survey shows great variation of animals by oceanic separation (e.g. different mammals across similar habitat in South America, Africa, Australia etc.) and more land mammals and land reptiles on islands that were once continental such as Honshu or Ireland than those that are geologically new such as Hawaii or the Galapagos archipelago.